Re: newIANA (was Fram behind closed doors via opaque channels)

[Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>]

Milton,

At 09:33 PM 7/12/98 -0400, mueller wrote:
>almost incomprehensible. ISI's involvement with the Internet is purely a
>product of US Government funding. IANA is nothing but a government contract

I'm sorry to have to say this, and to say it this way, but statements like
the above demonstrate the kind of confusion about ISI and IANA that are
prevalent around the world, particularly among those with no experience in
Internet development or operations.  The reality of IANA's position has
been stated and restated many times, yet that reality continues to be
ignored.  The fact that the US government's Green and White papers go to
some lengths to substantiate the basis for your view does not make that
view correct.

IANA gets its authority from the Internet operations and development
community.  It always has.  And it has always worked collaboratively with
that community.  Having been part of that community, I speak from
first-hand knowledge.  If you have first-hand data which runs contrary to
my own, direct experience about IANA's activities -- independent of its
funding -- please provide it.

One more time:  IANA funding has come from the US government.  It's
authority has come from the Internet community.

No amount of legalistic logic-games can change this very real and very
basic fact.  And if you want the current discussions to be productive, it
is best not to get bogged down in those games, since the current efforts
are oriented towards community consensus, rather than having a primary
concern about making Ira Magaziner happy.  Yes, it will be best if he is
comfortable with the outcome.  However, if it comes down to a broad and
strong community consensus which happens to differ from Magaziner's
preferences, there is no question which will prevail.

(I say this with considerable comfort, because Mr. Magaziner is certain to
accede to the wishes of such a consensus.)

>suspect your answer would be "NO." If so, then it is absolutely necessary for
>these functions to be moved into an entirely new structure, outside of US
>government control, in the private sector, and subject to global input.

The US DoD has not been a primary controller of IANA's decisions for quite
a long time, so that is not the real issue here.  The issue is evolving an
existing operation to adjust to an expanded Internet.  Such adjustments are
entirely normal with such growth and need not be viewed in the adversarial,
or fear-based, light you suggest, with fear of US government or, worse yet,
military, control.  That control doesn't exist now and isn't going to
exist.  What is at issue are simply the details of an evolution that was
already underway to the formal structure for IANA.  This is quite similar
to the evolution that took place with the creation of ISOC, to provide some
formal/legal enhancement to the position of the IETF, some years ago.  

>development. These personal relationships are, quite literally, not relevant

Indeed you are correct.  IANA has functioned as a formal entity for many
years and it is IANA, not Jon Postel, that should be the subject of
discussion.  It is IANA that has a position in the Internet operations and
development community.

>For this reason it is also a mistake, and a serious one, to think that we are
>now creating a "new IANA." As a figure of speech, it is acceptable, because

Ahh, thank you for including a point that I can agree with wholly.

>whatever new organization is created will subsume the functions of IANA.
>However, it is dangerous to use this term, because it obscures the
>fundamental fact that the Internet's coordinating functions are undergoing a
>radical mutation, making a sharp and irrevocable break with the past. The new
>Entity will be a global organization, not a US government contractor; it will

And it is a shame you had to follow with a statement that is plainly wrong,
in terms of the existing IANA's operational basis.  IANA has always been a
global organization.  It has always dealt with the Internet as a global
entity, rather than a US plaything.

>not be dominated by one person but more of an impersonal institution, with
>its own rules, and subject to much more formalized checks and balances. This

I must say that it is amusing to hear someone speak apparently in favor of
impersonal and mechanical organization behavior.  It suggests lack of
familiarity with many of IANA's actions, which have become increasingly
'mechanical' over the years, and it suggests a failure to appreciate the
need for ALL organizations to have a human touch.


At 10:02 PM 7/12/98 -0400, mueller wrote:
>IANA, along with NSF, ISOC, and others, participated in international
>negotiations about the future of the Internet root servers (via IAHC) when
they
>had absolutely no legal authority to do so. IANA and ISOC somehow managed to
>convince themselves that they "owned" the root. They did not. That is
precisely
>why the USG stepped in.

Milton, I hadn't realized that among your many talents you counted
expertise in the appropriate areas of law, permitting you to make these
assertions so firmly.  As a non-attorney, I can argue the operational and
historical facts, but merely "suspect" their status within law.  Not
surprisingly, my suspicions are that you are quite wrong.

Further, you really should take more cognizance of established practise.
I'm told it has considerable force in legal disputes lacking clear and
applicable statute or case law.  In this case, established practise is that
IANA has 15 years of authority over these activities.  NSF has fewer years
but more formal involvement... and dollars.  Further it was not just NSF
that was involved from the US government but, rather, the Federal
Networking Council.  If you choose to learn a bit about the FNC's
activities for the years preceding this debate, you will discover that they
exercised quite a bit of authority, from time to time.  To dismiss NSF and
the FNC so glibly is really quite inappropriate.

So we have substantial US government involvement DIRECTLY in the IAHC
process, as well as on-going discussions with various other US government
staffers, including Mr. Magaziner, none of whom indicated any intent to
pull the rug out from under the activity.  Quite the contrary, they were
extremely encouraging.  These are facts, albeit ones which do not jibe with
your own assertions.

Further, you should be more careful about assertions concerning ISOC.  It
took the organizational initiative to get the IAHC going, but the authority
for the work came from IANA.  We were quite explicit about this.

And as you note, it isn't productive to pursue these points.  So please
stop.  It is taking quite a bit of time to constantly correct your
mis-statements.

d/


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker                         USA:                 +1 408 246 8253
Brandenburg Consulting                                   675 Spruce Drive
                                                  Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA
fax: +1 408 273 6464                 Malaysia:            +60 19 329 9445
<http://www.brandenburg.com>                     Post Office Box 296, UPM
<mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com>              Serdang, Selangor 43400 MY